Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Lodsys Takes On Gaming Heavyweights Including Rovio, EA, and Atari in Patent Dispute

daxomni said:
It's so sad to see how many Macrumors readers apparently have no clue that America's patent and litigation systems actually promote this type of abusive behavior. Make no mistake, Apple isn't any sort of grand savior of the American consumer. They're just as married to the current system as Lodsys is and joining one single lawsuit won't fix the system that promoted and incubated it no matter what the outcome is.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, I am more concerned at the lawsuit targets, rather than who makes them. Targeting individuals, or middleware companies will have a definitive impact on innovation.

I am a programmer, and I remember that when I joined the programming ecosystem, we were free to program what we wanted, when we wanted to. That's how the world and technological advancements got to the point they are today.

It kills me that now I know that when I release a new app, I may be subject to lawsuit from someone that doesn't make apps as me, and in fact... does not make anything! I am now afraid to program the way I like, and that saddens me.
 
daxomni said:
Absolutely. What this world needs is more people like Ben Hollberg and fewer people like Jonas Salk. Right Cmaier?
Click to expand...

This isn't utopia nor are we in a communist regime. History has told is that the best way to make technological progress is to allow the people who come up with the great ideas to profit from them. There are obviously exceptions. But if you think pharmaceutical companies will continue to spend billions on cures for dread diseases if they think that they won't have years of exclusivity to earn back their costs and to make a profit, you're crazy.
 
cmaier said:
This isn't utopia nor are we in a communist regime. History has told is that the best way to make technological progress is to allow the people who come up with the great ideas to profit from them. There are obviously exceptions. But if you think pharmaceutical companies will continue to spend billions on cures for dread diseases if they think that they won't have years of exclusivity to earn back their costs and to make a profit, you're crazy.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. Only that they invent stuff. They have research. They are not NPEs. Let them patent all they want, as long as they have invented it after years and years of research.

Think of it this way:

A pharmaceutical company patents the way of making a new medicine for fighting... let's say cancer. They don't stop other companies of making their own medicine, as long as it doesn't use the same production method/components. A patent troll patents the curing of the cancer itself.

See the difference?

Here is a great article that investigates many of the problems with the US Patent System.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...patents-attack
Click to expand...

That article was really enlightening. Something must be done about patent issues.

A viable alternative to the current patent system is for the Government agencies to grant licenses for patents to practicing entities, who have already made a viable invention that is already using this patent. However, if this patent describes an invention made by others that just hasn't been filed as a patent, yet, don't grant the license!

Example (quote from FOSSPATENTS)

The week before Christmas I reported on a troll lawsuit (in East Texas) that really made a lot of people shake their heads in disbelief. Hopewell Culture & Design claims to hold a patent on the concept of displaying additional information if an object is double-clicked. That patent was applied for in 2002 (ten years younger than Lodsys's '078 patent, which means you don't have to go that far back to search for prior art). It's really hard to imagine that no one did before 2002 what that patent covers -- or at least something sufficiently similar to invalidate the patent for obviousness. Hopewell sued Apple, Motorola, Samsung, HTC, LG, Nokia, Adobe, Palm, Opera and Quickoffice
Click to expand...

Couldn't anyone in the right mind think that since EVERYONE is using double-click since 1988 this should NOT be patented?

EDIT: Just occurred to me: Wether Lodsys wins a lawsuit, or receives a settlement payment, they will earn enough money to buy more patents and do the same thing afterwards.
 
Last edited:
No, a patent troll does not "patent the curing of cancer." in order to obtain a patent one has to disclose one's invention with sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. If an NPE attempted to patent the idea of curing cancer without explaining how to do it, the patent application would be rejected for failing to satisfy at least the "enablement" requirement of 35 USC 112,
 
*post deleted*

cmaier please delete too. I will take this to them directly :)
 
Last edited:
Muskyman said:
I've been LODSYS'ed! I have an application on the Android market that contains a button which takes you to the Market website so you can buy the full version. This is not using in-app purchasing API's, it is simply a hyperlink.

Here is the claim:

1. A system comprising:
• units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations,
• a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity,
• a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity,
• a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and
• a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

Let's look at the each part that makes up the system:

1) The unit of a commodity according to Lodsys is the Android application (not the phone or tablet itself)

2) A user interface, well yes, most applications have a user interface.

3) A memory within each of the applications capable of storing results of the two way interaction. This claim is FALSE. The application does not store or remember the results of the interaction. When I press the button, the application actually QUITS IMMEDIATELY, and spawns another application, the web browser. At this point my application is done. It does not remember if you clicked the button the next time you run it. It does not store the result of the interaction anywhere.

4) A communication element within the application that carries the results to a central location. According to Lodsys the central location is the Android market website. This claim is FALSE. The application does not SEND information to the Android Market, rather The Android Market website is being RECEIVED and displayed by a completely different application, the web browser. Furthermore the Android Market Website does not know that you arrived there by clicking a button in the application, or by typing the website address in directly while using a web browser. The central location is not receiving any information from the application as a result of this interaction.

5) Collecting the results of the interaction from users in different locations in a central location to allow for an upgrade to occur in the product. This claim is FALSE. As already stated, the central location does not collect information from the application. I should also mention an upgrade is not happening in this case. If a user decided to buy the full version from the Android Market Website, it is installed as a completely separate application. The original application containing the button is unchanged.


I was thinking, maybe Lodsys can claim that television commercials are infringing. The television has a user interface controlled by the remote. If people like the commercial they will turn off the television, drive to the nearest store (central location) and buy the product.
Click to expand...

You were sued?
 
not sued. yet. They want me to pay licensing fees.

Problem is, I can't pay even them if their patent is valid.

If they want a percentage of sales that buy through my button in the application, then there needs to be a way to track those sales. Since my demo version is just a hyperlink and opens a website, there is no way to differentiate that with someone visiting the site with a web browser.

If they want a percentage of all sales, then that's absurd because the full version doesn't infringe on their patent.

If they want a percentage of the demo version, then it's $0 because it's free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back